曝光臺(tái) 注意防騙 網(wǎng)曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營(yíng)店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費(fèi)者

Afurther limitation expressedby the Convention (Article 3(2)) is that it shall not apply to aircraft used in military, custom or police service, nor in the cases of joint air “transport” operating organizations or international operating agencies which operate aircrafts which are subject to joint or international registration (Article 5), if the place of take-off or landing of the aircraft on board which the offence is committed is situated in the State of registration of such aircraft (Article 3(4)). On the other hand, the Convention would apply if the place of take-off or that of actual landing is situated outside the territory of the State of registration of the aircraft, on the understandingthat it is immaterial whether the aircraft is engagedin an international or a domestic .ight.
II.  Powers and Duties Imposed Upon States in Order to Combat Hijacking
Beside the obligation to make the offence of hijacking punishable by severe penalties, the Convention imposed upon the Contracting States a series of obliga-tions that are geared towards stamping out hijacking, these obligations are that:
Each State shall take measures as may be necessary to establish – apart from any existing national criminal jurisdiction (Article 4(3)) – its jurisdiction over the offence and any act of violence against a passenger or crew when (Article 4(1)):
(a)  
the offence is committed on board an aircraft registered in that State;

(b)  
the aircraft on board which the offence is committed lands in the territorywith the alleged offender still on board;

596ICAO Doc 9050 LC/169-2 at 72. 597Mankiewicz(1971, p. 201).
D. The Hague Convention on Hijacking 1970  233
(c)  the offence is committed on board an aircraft leased without crew to lessee who has his principle place of business or, if he has no such place of business, his permanent residence in that State.
In addition, every Contracting State must take necessary measures to establish its jurisdiction over the offence in case where the alleged offender is present in its territory and it does not extradite him (Article 4(2)). Mankiewicz further observes:
this provision is necessary in order to increase the effective punishment even if the hijacker is not prosecuted in, or escaped form, the State of landing or is not extradited to the State of registration of the aircraft. Thus, the alleged hijacker can be arrested no matter where the offence took place as long as he is present in a Contracting State. This provision seems to introduce the principle of universal jurisdiction into the Hague Convention.
The jurisdictional powers conferred upon States by paragraph 1(b) of Article 4 above, may be considered as an important factor in the attempts of the international community to stamp out and deter hijacking, in that it gives Contracting States a legal instrument, which they may otherwise lack, in view of absence of any link between them and the State of landing, to act in these situations. This is an acceptable situation, whereby contracting States can extend the basis of jurisdiction under international law.
On the other hand, according to Article 4(1) three States possess concurrent jurisdiction over an alleged offender: .rst, the State of registration of the aircraft; second, the State of landing if the offender is on board the aircraft, and third, any Party to the Convention within whose boundaries the alleged offender is present, once that State has chosen not to extradite him to the State of registration of the aircraft or to the State in which he landed while he is still on board the hijacked aircraft, or to the State described in subdivision 1(c). In addition, subsection (3) sanctions such bases of jurisdiction as “passive nationality” where the nationallaw so provides. It is interesting to note that the jurisdiction of the State of registration of the aircraft is equal to the other States described in Article 4.
　
中國(guó)航空網(wǎng) www.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Aviation Security Law 航空安全法(172)